High quality online streaming service

[Gio G]

Seems to be some nice offers out there for Black Friday to pilot some of these providers. I see that Tidal are offering £1.99 for 4 months on their Hi-Fi service and Amazon Music HD 3 months free, then onto a subscription. Qobuz is another interesting provider claiming good HiFi content.

Once you dig into these providers it becomes apparent that if you are streaming using something like Airplay 2, there seems to be maximum amount of data you can transfer. Which beg's the question what solution is best for me.

The max WAV, FLAC and AIFF my device will take is 24bit/384kHz, same for Apple lossless. It seems Amazon Ultra HD service can exceed these thresholds..

Anyone been down this road?

G

[RowntreesCabana]

Have a search for "NPR sound quality test" on google and see if you can hear the difference, then decide if its worth the extra. I personally knocked all of it on the head after testing it myself and now just use the basic Tidal service.

I've seen tests performed by young classically trained musicians with perfect hearing who couldn't tell the difference between lossless and 256kbps, nevermind 320kbps. A vast majority of music is averagely produced as well so it won't make it sound better regardless.

There will be those that claim that they can hear the difference though.

[legzr1]

A lot depends on what you’re feeding the signal to. 24/192 flac fed into a wireless speaker is a waste. Low rate MP3 into a decent hifi just doesn’t cut it (for me).

I’ve tried most and ended with Qobuz for the main system, Spotify for the car, the kids and background music in the garage.

[Crackie]

Much research has been done into whether listeners can detect any improvement when using playback systems with higher res formats relative to the original red book CD format i.e 16bit / 44.1Khz. The short answer........according to all the competently conducted tests I've seen........ is no.

This link might be of interest https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,57406.0.htm...

To summarise, regarding whether various professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles could detect a '16 bit bottleneck' ( 16 bit A/D/A loop ) inserted into a high end, hi-res system. " The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers."

I'm sure that some people will be along to say they can hear the improvement..........that is fine too but the science suggests there are other reasons for them reaching that conclusion. Confirmation bias, post purchase rationalisation etc etc. Sound perception and psychoacoustics are interesting subjects........

[legzr1]

Crackie said:

Much research has been done into whether listeners can detect any improvement when using playback systems with higher res formats relative to the original red book CD format i.e 16bit / 44.1Khz. The short answer........according to all the competently conducted tests I've seen........ is no.

This link might be of interest https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,57406.0.htm...

To summarise, regarding whether various professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles could detect a '16 bit bottleneck' ( 16 bit A/D/A loop ) inserted into a high end, hi-res system. " The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers."

I'm sure that some people will be along to say they can hear the improvement..........that is fine too but the science suggests there are other reasons for them reaching that conclusion. Confirmation bias, post purchase rationalisation etc etc. Sound perception and psychoacoustics are interesting subjects........

I gave up with DVD-A and SACD and sold the players and discs when I realised (using my own ears,equipment etc) that a well recorded and produced CD or FLAC was more enjoyable than a ropey version on DSD or 24 bit PCM. Differences between the same files DSD vs CD were near impossible to distinguish.

However, and using my own ‘evidence’, the drop down to compressed MP3 is noticeable on decent gear. In an era with high rate data transfers, fast broadband, lossless codecs and relatively cheap and huge data storage there really is no need for lossy codecs anymore. At least, for those interested in quality.

[RowntreesCabana]

legzr1 said:

However, and using my own ‘evidence’, the drop down to compressed MP3 is noticeable on decent gear. In an era with high rate data transfers, fast broadband, lossless codecs and relatively cheap and huge data storage there really is no need for lossy codecs anymore. At least, for those interested in quality.

I disagree, the difference is indistinguishable on high end gear also in my experience. I'd be happy to challenge anyone to tell the difference between 320kbps and lossless. As I mentioned above, the test I saw with a classical musician who had perfect hearing couldn't, and various other tests confirm this also. I spent so much time ripping my collection to lossless, then did side by side testing with 320kbps and no longer use flac. If someone actually takes the effort to conduct their own blind testing, I'm pretty certain they'll discover that, at best, they'll do no better than 50/50 in identifying the differences.

You'll save 75% in storage space too.

[legzr1]

When storage was expensive and dial-up Internet was the norm, compressed audio which loses so much information was understandable. Mobile phones and MP3 players with a couple of hundred MB of storage would be useless storing only a couple of albums at a time.

That time has passed. There really is no need to compress files nowadays.

The vast majority of the population don’t really care. Most, including yourself, claim not to hear a difference. That’s perfectly fine. I’d guess most either can’t see or aren’t too bothered with the difference between SD and 4K HDR either...

[RowntreesCabana]

legzr1 said:

When storage was expensive and dial-up Internet was the norm, compressed audio which loses so much information was understandable. Mobile phones and MP3 players with a couple of hundred MB of storage would be useless storing only a couple of albums at a time.

That time has passed. There really is no need to compress files nowadays.

The vast majority of the population don’t really care. Most, including yourself, claim not to hear a difference. That’s perfectly fine. I’d guess most either can’t see or aren’t too bothered with the difference between SD and 4K HDR either...

Not really a comparable, I think we can all see the difference between SD and HDR.

Have you actually ever done blind testing between 320kbps and flac? If you have and could consistently identify the correct track over a proper sample, then you're defying the odds.

This is quite an amusing little look at it, only with 128aac and flac

https://youtu.be/UrfX-g8auc8

Edited by RowntreesCabana on Thursday 26th November 20:21

[Tony1963]

I used the various streaming services, with cheap/free trials, then paid for a few months. One evening, over a glass of wine, we realised that the only service we were using was 6 Music. And that’s free! So this weekend, now the living room has been decorated and a new carpet fitted, I’ll be rebuilding the system with my Naim CDX CD player installed, and then see if I can sneak the pre and power amps in lol.

I suppose I just draw pleasure from popping a CD on and listening to the whole thing.

[RowntreesCabana]

Tony1963 said:

I used the various streaming services, with cheap/free trials, then paid for a few months. One evening, over a glass of wine, we realised that the only service we were using was 6 Music. And that’s free! So this weekend, now the living room has been decorated and a new carpet fitted, I’ll be rebuilding the system with my Naim CDX CD player installed, and then see if I can sneak the pre and power amps in lol.

I suppose I just draw pleasure from popping a CD on and listening to the whole thing.

Thats what I've been doing of late, due to my streamer developing a fault and being at the manufacturer for repair, but I still listen to a good selection of CD,vinyl and Internet based music. Its been great listening to the CDs in their entirety, and they're so cheap to buy now used.

Sneaking audio gear in and out the room without the wife spotting is half the fun!

[legzr1]

RowntreesCabana said:

Not really a comparable, I think we can all see the difference between SD and HDR.

Have you actually ever done blind testing between 320kbps and flac? If you have and could consistently identify the correct track over a proper sample, then you're defying the odds.

This is quite an amusing little look at it, only with 128aac and flac

https://youtu.be/UrfX-g8auc8

Edited by RowntreesCabana on Thursday 26th November 20:21

As soon as I get time i’ll rip an album into MP3 using the bitrates and codecs you’ve mentioned and get back to you.

SD -vs- HDR - you’d be surprised how many people just shrug their shoulders when shown the difference.

[Gio G]

Thanks for all for the replies..some helpful information..

I downloaded Tidal for their 4 months for £1.99 deal - highest quality, however noticed on my Naim app it does not support Tidal quality over "HiFi" I assume 16-bit is the max.

Meanwhile my app does support Qobuz, which streams up to their Hi-Res - 24-Bit platform. So downloaded Qobuz for a month trial. To be honest, I really cannot tell the difference in quality. Maybe Airplay 2 has some limitations. I have a wireless box a meter from my Mu-so system, so does not need to travel far and broadband is super fast..

I think I am going to keep listening to Qobuz in "Hi-Res" mode for maybe a week and switch back to Tidal to see whether I can tell the difference. Judging by the comments I probably can't. Also that NPR quality test, got 3 right, so probably explains it..

G

[sociopath]

"you can tell the difference", "no you can't" arguments go on forever, neither side will change their mind and double blind tests are often quoted but rarely carried out.

For me I tried tidal, qobuz, and amazon hd as an alternative to spotify. I really didn't want to hear a difference because I didn't want to pay for both (my wife loves spotify for its simplicity) but I could tell. Not sure there was a difference between the other alternatives that I could hear, but definitely better than spotify - Although the difference in production between albums and tracks makes a much bigger difference between good and st

I went for Amazon in the end as it was cheaper since I already had prime although its UI is rubbish.

My cd collection still sounds sharper, but I'm lazy, and If I'm going to stand up to out a disc on I'll go for my vinyl collection

[Tony1963]

Gio G said:

Thanks for all for the replies..some helpful information..

I downloaded Tidal for their 4 months for £1.99 deal - highest quality, however noticed on my Naim app it does not support Tidal quality over "HiFi" I assume 16-bit is the max.

Meanwhile my app does support Qobuz, which streams up to their Hi-Res - 24-Bit platform. So downloaded Qobuz for a month trial. To be honest, I really cannot tell the difference in quality. Maybe Airplay 2 has some limitations. I have a wireless box a meter from my Mu-so system, so does not need to travel far and broadband is super fast..

I think I am going to keep listening to Qobuz in "Hi-Res" mode for maybe a week and switch back to Tidal to see whether I can tell the difference. Judging by the comments I probably can't. Also that NPR quality test, got 3 right, so probably explains it..

G

If you’re streaming the music through your apple device to your hifi, rather than just using your apple device as a remote for a streamer, then as far as I’m aware, Airplay can only stream at CD-ish quality.

Edited by Tony1963 on Friday 27th November 10:07

[Gio G]

Tony1963 said:

If you’re streaming the music through your apple device to your hifi, rather than just using your apple device as a remote for a streamer, then as far as I’m aware, Airplay can only stream at CD-ish quality.

Edited by Tony1963 on Friday 27th November 10:07

Great point.. So I am using Qobuz in my native Naim app, it does flash up as 24 bit while playing music, So the Naim app was enhanced this Spring to play Qobuz at 24 bit..

G

Edited by Gio G on Friday 27th November 10:33

Edited by Gio G on Friday 27th November 10:33

[GravelBen]

sociopath said:

"you can tell the difference", "no you can't" arguments go on forever, neither side will change their mind and double blind tests are often quoted but rarely carried out.

It is an interesting one.

I don't know if I could consistently identify FLAC vs 320k MP3 in a proper test, but some of my music I have copies in both formats and there are enough times when streaming from my own NAS that I find myself thinking 'this just doesn't sound as good as it should', then check and find thats its playing the mp3 copy rather than the FLAC copy. I can't remember ever thinking that and checking to find it is the FLAC copy after all.

Thats on pretty honest (to my amateur sound tech / mediocre (ex)musician ears) but not high end gear, but I think you do have to be listening quite closely to pick any difference. And if I wasn't so accustomed to the lossless copy of the same recording, I wouldn't have thought anything was missing.

Off topic though, I don't use any streaming services to give useful input to the OP

Edited by GravelBen on Friday 27th November 11:16

[legzr1]

Gio G said:

Great point.. So I am using Qobuz in my native Naim app, it does flash up as 24 bit while playing music, So the Naim app was enhanced this Spring to play Qobuz at 24 bit..

G

Edited by Gio G on Friday 27th November 10:33

Edited by Gio G on Friday 27th November 10:33

Using the native app is the best way - your device simply points the Naim to the correct hi-res servers from Qobuz and acts as a posh remote.
I use a first gen Naim NDX and getting hi-res Qobuz is a little more difficult but the results are worth it (to my ears anyway).

Naim do not support Tidal MQA which explains why you won’t see anything over 16/44 files.
There are ways to get ‘first unfold’ using an app such as Mconnect which will feed a ‘higher than’ CD quality file if available but it’s a long way from full fat hi-res. MQA does not convince me. As soon as I heard Qobuz and their now reduced costs I let my Tidal sub lapse.

I also had lots of issues with Tidal changing their protocols every few months without informing manufacturers such as Naim. Cue weeks of issues with tracks reducing to play, albums not appearing and emails to and fro with Tidal blaming Naim, Naim blaming Tidal etc etc.

If only Spotify would increase their quality from lossy formats!

[legzr1]

GravelBen said:

I don't know if I could consistently identify FLAC vs 320k MP3 in a proper test, but some of my music I have copies in both formats and there are enough times when streaming from my own NAS that I find myself thinking 'this just doesn't sound as good as it should', then check and find thats its playing the mp3 copy rather than the FLAC copy. I can't remember ever thinking that and checking to find it is the FLAC copy after all.

Edited by GravelBen on Friday 27th November 11:16

I was about to post something almost exactly as you’ve written. ‘There’s something missing, something not right’ and there it is - MP3 rather than what I was expecting.

I solved it by deleting duplicate MP3 albums and moving the rest into a separate folder on the NAS. That folder only got accessed by kids on the bedroom kit but Spotify has replaced that for them so pretty redundant now.